Tennessee Vols Basketball Recruiting

[walkenvol]

I mean that is a role player. You can start and still be a role player.

Like Uros?

 

[Probably_in_Class]

I’m pretty high on zz, but when I think “role player”, 20ish minutes off the bench is almost exactly what I think. Grant has averaged 19.4 minutes per game for his NBA career 24.4 this season) and is a role player for that Celtics team.

I mean, that's 4th most among the team though. So you're saying only 3 guys on the roster are above the level of role players? I must need to really re-learn what a role player is if that is the case...

There's 8 extra minutes in an NBA game, and ZZ still has more than your role player example. You probably need a better example.

 

[Probably_in_Class]

I mean that is a role player. You can start and still be a role player.

That's 4th most on our team. So only 3 guys aren't role players?

Not to mention it was: as a true freshman, behind a 5* NBA PG, and for a coach who is notorious for being reluctant to play guards early. You could argue that his first year was an environment built against ZZ getting any playing time, and instead he was 4th overall (over a 17th year senior) on the team in minutes. He has already overachieved. Writing him off when he has 3 more years left is asinine. Based only on his performance on the court so far, he's more likely to be remembered as an all-time great than he is to be remembered as a role player.

 

[VolArmy74]

I don't know that I'd define ZZ as a role player because he's generally more capable at more things than a role player. Role players are very important though. Dennis Rodman is the ultimate role player. They are guys that generally have a narrow role where they impact the game but can do so in a huge way. Rodman couldn't shoot and barely scored, wasn't a good ball handler and you didn't want him shooting free throws, but his role was playing defense and rebounding and he did those at a Hall of Fame level.

ZZ can handle the ball, shoot pretty well, score, play defense etc. He's a multi tool player. His size will always be his biggest achilles and that will be what limits him to the extent he is limited here. But I see him always being a player who can do multiple things well. That doesn't mean he will start the next three years at point guard, but he will likely always make an impact with the minutes he's given.

 

[TrippieRedd]

ZZ is good at basketball...that is all.

 

[Col_Cathcart]

I mean, that's 4th most among the team though. So you're saying only 3 guys on the roster are above the level of role players? I must need to really re-learn what a role player is if that is the case...

There's 8 extra minutes in an NBA game, and ZZ still has more than your role player example. You probably need a better example.

Yeah. Usually you say role player as in star vs role player. Very few teams would have more than 2-3 stars and at the college level you’re lucky to have 1.

Also Grant had 24 minutes per game this season which is equivalent to 20 in a college game. It’s a pretty solid comparison if you look at this season.

 

[i2amavol]

Like Uros?

In my mind, Uros has mostly been a role player. I don't think of ZZ as one. Having said that, he can play 22 minutes a game and still be the MVP. I will not necessarily base his value to the team on how many minutes he gets.

 

[Stoerner Fumbles]

Yeah. Usually you say role player as in star vs role player. Very few teams would have more than 2-3 stars and at the college level you’re lucky to have 1.

Also Grant had 24 minutes per game this season which is equivalent to 20 in a college game. It’s a pretty solid comparison if you look at this season.

Nobody “usually” says role player vs star player. A role player has a specific set of narrow talents. That’s their “role”. That’s the meaning of the term. It is not a counterpoint to bring talented.

 

[Unconditional Surrender]

ZZ will never be more than a role player. A good one, though.

Ice cold take

 

[Probably_in_Class]

Yeah. Usually you say role player as in star vs role player. Very few teams would have more than 2-3 stars and at the college level you’re lucky to have 1.

Also Grant had 24 minutes per game this season which is equivalent to 20 in a college game. It’s a pretty solid comparison if you look at this season.

Ya, that's not usual

 

[Col_Cathcart]

Ya, that's not usual

I just googled “role player definition basketball” and got this so maybe more usual than you think?

 

[Col_Cathcart]

Nobody “usually” says role player vs star player. A role player has a specific set of narrow talents. That’s their “role”. That’s the meaning of the term. It is not a counterpoint to bring talented.

Nobody said it meant they’re not talented. Every player on a team has a role. By your definition, the term is meaningless. What would you call a player who plays significant minutes and isn’t a “role player”

 

[Stoerner Fumbles]

Nobody said it meant they’re not talented. Every player on a team has a role. By your definition, the term is meaningless. What would you call a player who plays significant minutes and isn’t a “role player”

It’s not my definition, it’s literally “the” definition based on the meaning of the two words, and the practical reason for combining them to explain a type of player who fits a role. The term role player developed to describe players who might not be complete players, but are valuable due to a specific narrow set of skills that are of high value in given situations. Someone who comes in to get an opposing player in foul trouble plays that role. A player who blocks shots and rebounds is a role player. Your case was that a role player is someone who isn’t a “star”. That’s the talent axis, and it’s not related to breadth of skills. As someone stated, a player like Rodman was both the ultimate role player, and a star. He just had a very narrow high value skill set. ZZ is the prototype for a well rounded traditional PG. He handles the ball, plays D, drives, assists, sets the offense and tempo, and runs the floor. When a player fits the traditional definition of their position, they are quite the opposite of a role player, by definition. To answer your question of what to call such a player, people usually combine the position and a modifier like “traditional”, “prototypical”, “perfect example of a” etc. ZZ is a prototypical PG. He needs to work on some things, as all players do. Next year he’s the leading candidate to be our starting PG. He is not a role player.

 

[Lankykong]

Nobody said it meant they’re not talented. Every player on a team has a role. By your definition, the term is meaningless. What would you call a player who plays significant minutes and isn’t a “role player”

I would call them a “rotational player” or a “sixth man” if they get the most minutes from the bench

 

[brentcontractor]

Most freshman start as role players unless they are like Chandler. As they progress they get more minutes. Before the transfer portal, the starters graduates and we all wondered how we were going to replace the points scored. Each year the "role" players from the year before grew into the starting role. ZZ will be given the opportunity and instruction to become a bigger part of the team.

 

[Weezer]

I love ZZ and I'm all for him earning that starting spot, but I still think we need another PG on this team. I just don't share the opinion that BJE comes in ready to be our #2 PG. I could absolutely be wrong, and if I am, I am, but I think that's our biggest weakness right now.

 

[Lankykong]

I love ZZ and I'm all for him earning that starting spot, but I still think we need another PG on this team. I just don't share the opinion that BJE comes in ready to be our #2 PG. I could absolutely be wrong, and if I am, I am, but I think that's our biggest weakness right now.

I agree with this take. It’s hard to know 100% but I don’t want to make BJ have to be the backup PG (though I guess we could use our past emergency PG options)

 

[DMcVol]

It's nice that we now worry about having a second PG.....I remember years when we had none....Kevin Punter, Jon Higgins were 2G playing PG out of necessity....I am sure I am forgetting somebody....

 

[Col_Cathcart]

I would call them a “rotational player” or a “sixth man” if they get the most minutes from the bench

I would say that a rotation player is anyone who gets minutes and that the 6th man is one example of a role player. My question was more for the people who think that role player is some kind of insult so focused on what do you call someone who’s better than a role player (because apparently zz getting 20 minutes off the bench last season puts him in some higher category)

 

[Col_Cathcart]

It’s not my definition, it’s literally “the” definition based on the meaning of the two words, and the practical reason for combining them to explain a type of player who fits a role. The term role player developed to describe players who might not be complete players, but are valuable due to a specific narrow set of skills that are of high value in given situations. Someone who comes in to get an opposing player in foul trouble plays that role. A player who blocks shots and rebounds is a role player. Your case was that a role player is someone who isn’t a “star”. That’s the talent axis, and it’s not related to breadth of skills. As someone stated, a player like Rodman was both the ultimate role player, and a star. He just had a very narrow high value skill set. ZZ is the prototype for a well rounded traditional PG. He handles the ball, plays D, drives, assists, sets the offense and tempo, and runs the floor. When a player fits the traditional definition of their position, they are quite the opposite of a role player, by definition. To answer your question of what to call such a player, people usually combine the position and a modifier like “traditional”, “prototypical”, “perfect example of a” etc. ZZ is a prototypical PG. He needs to work on some things, as all players do. Next year he’s the leading candidate to be our starting PG. He is not a role player.

So what I’m calling a “star” you’re calling a “complete player”. Gotcha. I think you’re being pretty pedantic, but at least that’s a distinction I guess. I’d quibble with you contrasting a role player with a traditional player. A traditional player is still just playing a role. It just happens to be a well established role that people have been filling for a long time. Uros is both a traditional center and a role player. ZZ is a traditional point guard and (at this point) a role player.

I got into this discussion because someone claimed that zz was “more than a role player” already on account of his getting 20 minutes per game off the bench. It sounds like we both agree that he was a prototypical role player last season (energy off the bench/ secondary playmaker) with the potential to grow into more.

 

[TheMookieMonster]

What does it say? I assume Illinois.

 

[HypeVol2020]

What does it say? I assume Illinois.

It says Gonzaga or Texas Tech. Mostly likely Gonzaga apparently

 

[joevols89]

Given that logic, who is not a role player? ZZ played the back up point. He has a well rounded skill set. He’s not a pass only PG, or defensive specialist alone. He’s a typical starting PG. He’s the leading candidate to be the starting point. His role-playing last year was playing in a two guard set with Chandler, in a set up that was typically two top, but with some off ball sets. If BJ can handle the ball, we may see that again as it opened up the three and the off ball drive for ZZ. It’s hard to make the argument for anyone but ZZ starting as the PG, unless we bring someone in. That is not, by definition, a role player.

Obviously, JJJ/Vescovi/KC were not role players on this past year's team. It was their team. Fulky maybe... but our bigs were just more or less all role players last year. Pretty clear cut and dry minutes per game separation with JJJ/Vescovi/KC and everyone else on the team.

I don't consider guys like Mashack last year to be roleplayers. Didn't play enough to even be considered that imo.

 

[joevols89]

Like Uros?

Yes.

 

[joevols89]

That's 4th most on our team. So only 3 guys aren't role players?

Not to mention it was: as a true freshman, behind a 5* NBA PG, and for a coach who is notorious for being reluctant to play guards early. You could argue that his first year was an environment built against ZZ getting any playing time, and instead he was 4th overall (over a 17th year senior) on the team in minutes. He has already overachieved. Writing him off when he has 3 more years left is asinine. Based only on his performance on the court so far, he's more likely to be remembered as an all-time great than he is to be remembered as a role player.

How is saying this writing him off? All I said was he was a role player last year, lol. As it stands right now he is our only true PG if we don't add another and will play 30+ mpg. I was just talking about last year.

I mean that is a role player. You can start and still be a role player.